On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham <notting@splat.cc> wrote:

As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO
who's trying to sell me the thing they're talking about the licensing of.

We certainly could send that interpretation of CDDL/GPL and the kernel to the
legal team... but I'm not sure they'd agree with it.

Well, if Lawrence Livermore is doing it, and Canonical apparently plans to do it, it probably would be a good idea to get a determination from the legal team. I don't care one way or another, I use BTRFS - but we shouldn't be saying there are license issues if there aren't.